ATD2011 Milt Dunnell Cup Final: Regina Pats vs. Ottawa Senators

I think the case for Tony O in the top 18 is very flimsy. He's 19-24 in my book.

I mean, in the last series, you had Tony O very slightly behind Belfour, which I think is fair, but how high do you have Belfour?

Bernie Parent is 10th at best (I have him 11th), and he was without a doubt better than Tony O.

wow, you would seriously consider having him as low as 24th? You don't say a lot of ridiculous things, but...

clearly you are missing something.

I actually have Belfour pretty high - you know this. After Bower and Parent in 10th and 11th, Belfour may be next.

Yes I have Parent ahead... but if it wasn't for two of the most incredible playoff runs of all-time, I wouldn't. Parent's regular season career is just Esposito's, minus a couple great years, minus a couple more good years. (Esposito, FWIW, had one of the greatest playoff runs of all-time too - only problem was that the exclamation mark on it was the Lemaire goal)

How are Esposito's regular season accomplishments better than those of Hugh Lehman...

I was gonna say. Lehman is a 11-time all-star of the PCHA and multiple league champion. Eight times he backstopped his team to the Stanley Cup Finals, the biggest contest. He was indisputably one of the top-3 of his generation and top-10 of the earliest eras (eras, multiple ones, if one clumps all pre-consolidation NHL hockey together).

One would have to do some serious era discounting not to see Lehamn as at least Esposito's equal, if all-time greatness is to be judged by their accomplishments relative to their respective era.

I think the issue with goalies is that we are simply overrating them. Roy/Hasek/Plante/Sawchuk should be the only goalies in the top-50, for example.

I say this because not enough people seem to think that goalies really make all that much of a difference. I point you to Nashville, if you think this way. Their 1st line center (Mike Fisher), would be a third line center on almost every other playoff team, yet Rinne carries these boys to series wins. Vancouver, a few years back, was in a similar boat (they had solid top-end talent but zero depth).

How are Esposito's regular season accomplishments better than those of Hugh Lehman or Tiny Thompson?

Re: Thompson, let's just look at the stuff I posted last night:

- 18 top-2s in wins, shutouts, GAA, same as Espo, but in a smaller league (yes, just team accomplishments, only a piece of the puzzle)
- Not his fault, but has no durability advantage over his peers as all goalies played every game generally. Espo was top-2 in minutes 9 times and was by far the most durable of his era. (Brodeur gets massive credit for this, why not Espo?)
- one fewer all-star team (4)
- one fewer first all-star team (2)
- the data doesn't really exist, unfortunately, to beef up his all-star voting record, though I can say he was legitimately 3rd (behind Normie Smith & Wilf Cude) in 1937
- Hart voting record nowhere near Espo's (one 4th-place)
- Not Thompson's fault that no sv% records exist, but for a post-1952 goalie like Espo (or Parent, or Dryden...) sv% records do serve as some proof that this wasn't "just" a goalie posting a low GAA by having a strong team, he did in fact stop pucks at a high level. - it provides a level of "conclusiveness" for modern goalies that we just don't have for the older guys, where GAA is the most telling statistic.
- Thompson's playoff record is every bit as disappointing compared to his regular season.

Where's the advantage for Thompson here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanIslander

I was gonna say. Lehman is a 11-time all-star of the PCHA and multiple league champion. Eight times he backstopped his team to the Stanley Cup Finals, the biggest contest. He was indisputably one of the top-3 of his generation and top-10 of the earliest eras (eras, multiple ones, if one clumps all pre-consolidation NHL hockey together).

One would have to do some serious era discounting not to see Lehamn as at least Esposito's equal, if all-time greatness is to be judged by their accomplishments relative to their respective era.

- He's not "indisputably top-3" in his generation. Some would put Holmes ahead - actually, I think most would, considering he gets chosen an average of 230 spots ahead. The playoff gap is just too large there. Indisputably top-4, sure. There's no one else who would take that #4 spot.

- Wherever Lehman ranks in his generation, realistically, is also where he ranks among all pre-merger goalies. By now, everyone seems to regard that generation as considerably better than the last. I know no ATD GM who thinks that any of Hern, Hutton, Lesueur and Moran are better than any of Benedict, Vezina, Lehman and Holmes. I have no problem with this. It's unlikely that four goalies could all truly be so much more "dominant" relative to the field (in which they are all included) than the previous generation was. But, the further back we go, the harder it gets to truly identify which goalies were performing the greatest individually. We know their regular season GAA, we know who won the cups, we have "some" newspaper accounts, and beyond that.....?

- "8 times backstopped his team to the cup finals" is a bit of a smokescreen statement, too. Two of those times were solely due to regular season W/L record and the other 8 were from him winning a two-game PCHA playoff.

- era discounting? Absolutely there has to be some. Lehman played in a league that usually had four teams, and he was often considered the best there. That league was one of two major leagues. (in 1922-1924 it was one of three leagues) Where does a goalie who is 1st/2nd in one of the two leagues rank overall? Could be 1st, could be 5th. We can only speculate. Furthermore, in these times, the 7-8 best goalies in hockey weren't the 7-8 playing in the PCHA and the NHA/NHL. There were other good goalies playing senior hockey, for example. When you see people saying, and rightfully so, "a top-10 back then is like a top-20 now", the same thing has to apply equally to all players, and that includes goaltenders. You dominate against a smaller, weaker talent pool and your all-time greatness has to be considered accordingly. Being 2nd or 3rd-best then, isn't like being 2nd or 3rd-best now.

So, is an all-star voting record of 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, in a three-team league, generally considered to be an offensive league with less impressive goaltending, that was one of two/three big leagues at the time, where even if those leagues were consolidated, the talent pool size would be very small and would not contain all the best players, more impressive than an all-star voting record of 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7 sixty years later? Not necessarily! Or, to simplify further, is being the 4th-best goalie of the 1910-1925 generation more impressive than being the 4th/5th-best goalie of the 1970-1985 generation sixty years later? I think It takes very little era discounting to conclude that it isn't.

I mean, clearly there is a ton of league/era discounting going on already, otherwise, with an all-star record like that, he would clearly by the #1 goalie of all-time. Right?

- As contemporaries, I think Durnan is just a hair below Brimsek, based on previous discussions during this draft. but where do they slot?
- I see no reason Thompson should be ahead of Esposito
- Vezina deserves to be regarded closer to Benedict, but how high can we really put him?
- I am not convinced Gardiner, in his short career, did more than Worters, whose best seasons are cut off by lack of all-star teams. I'm open to arguments there.
- Thompson might be the best or the worst of this 1930s bunch. It seems just about every year he was either an all-star or vezina winner. Ranking those three is tough. Strangely, he compares so well to Espo that I can conclusively say Espo belongs ahead, yet, I can't conclusively say Espo belongs ahead of Gardiner/Worters, and still, I can't conclusively say those two belong ahead of Thompson.
- Holecek is impossible to compare to these guys. Almost as good as Tretiak? Great. Then what? Is this like a Benedict/Vezina relationship, or Holmes/Lehman? Who knows.

If I'm making an all-time, all-players list, I can only say for sure that the top-12 belong in the top-100 and that the next 9 belong in the top-175. But sorting those 9 is tough for me.

If you asked me who's next after that, I'd say Smith, Fuhr, Hainsworth, Worsley, Holmes, & Lehman, and not in that order.

I'd say Espo belongs in the Top 20, but for me it's one of the bottom two slots. I definitely have Durnan, Gardiner, Brimsek, , Worters ahead. I don't have Thompson ahead of him. So I'd say it's Holocek or Espo for that 19 spot. And you're 100% correct I have no idea how to compare Holocek to any of these guys, which is why I think I'd have Espo over him. I'd also possibly have Lehman ahead of both of them. I'm definitely up for discussion on that one though.

- As contemporaries, I think Durnan is just a hair below Brimsek, based on previous discussions during this draft. but where do they slot?
- I see no reason Thompson should be ahead of Esposito
- Vezina deserves to be regarded closer to Benedict, but how high can we really put him?
- I am not convinced Gardiner, in his short career, did more than Worters, whose best seasons are cut off by lack of all-star teams. I'm open to arguments there.
- Thompson might be the best or the worst of this 1930s bunch. It seems just about every year he was either an all-star or vezina winner. Ranking those three is tough. Strangely, he compares so well to Espo that I can conclusively say Espo belongs ahead, yet, I can't conclusively say Espo belongs ahead of Gardiner/Worters, and still, I can't conclusively say those two belong ahead of Thompson.
- Holecek is impossible to compare to these guys. Almost as good as Tretiak? Great. Then what? Is this like a Benedict/Vezina relationship, or Holmes/Lehman? Who knows.

If I'm making an all-time, all-players list, I can only say for sure that the top-12 belong in the top-100 and that the next 9 belong in the top-175. But sorting those 9 is tough for me.

If you asked me who's next after that, I'd say Smith, Fuhr, Hainsworth, Worsley, Holmes, & Lehman, and not in that order.

I would argue that there should be no more than 6-8 goalies in the top-100. The position simply isn't considered as important as it should be. I know for a fact that I wouldn't ever draft a top-20 goalie ever again, unless it was at ridiculous value.

The only thing that really matters here is that Tony Esposito is definately better than Curtis Joseph.

Agree. Although the gap gets smaller in the playoffs. I have defended Espo's playoff record but I would do the same for Cujo, to a larger extent. I just don't understand why the guy is considered such a choker by some. I think he had a few brilliant series for both the Leafs and the Oilers. He was also good for Detroit.

Both Cujo and Espo have almost the same "career adjusted playoff sv%":

Joseph: .910, 8106 min
Esposito: .909, 6007 min

(normalized to .905, meaning both guys, on the aggregate, averaged higher than the league average)

I think Cujo, individually, performed better in the playoffs than Espo, but of course our evaluations shouldn't be focused 100% on the playoffs, either.

I was starting to question why I have Belfour so high, and then I took another look at his all-star voting in a Roy and Hasek-less world, and it's almost identical to Espo: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6. Then you add in the fact that it was a deeper and more competitive era (20 years later) and the fact that he was much better in the playoffs, he definitely deserves it. Anyway, what does this mean for Joseph? His all-star voting is as follows, with Roy and Hasek removed: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 6. Very strong, just not Espo-level.

I don't think I'm saying anything overpass would disagree with here.

--------------------

Re: Durnan being ahead of Esposito. Vecens, are you sure you're not just defaulting to canon when you make a statement like this? I realize I'm the one who's against the grain here, but hear me out.

Are Durnan's three best seasons better than Espo's (look at when they were, and who each goalie beat)? I don't think so. They are close though.

Are Durnan's 4th-6th-best seasons better than Espo's? A layman would look at them and say they are 1st AST years, so they must be better. But two of them are 1944 and 1945, so we know better than that. His 4th-best in 1946.... it's debatable.

Durnan's nondescript 7th-best season is obviously not better than Espo's.

And Espo played an 8th, 9th, 10th season, and beyond, at a pretty high level and deserves credit for that.

I'm not seeing why Durnan is "definitely" ahead, other than canon. He gets a lot of mileage out of the 6 first ASTs, but those aren't that great once you really look at them, much like Hainsworth's three straight Vezinas.

"8 times backstopped his team to the cup finals" is a bit of a smokescreen statement, too. Two of those times were solely due to regular season W/L record and the other 8 were from him winning a two-game PCHA playoff.

The point IS his regular season record!!! At least when comparing him to Tony Esposito, whose regular season record you vault. He won time and again against several HHOFers and ATD scorers. He was the man out west, in terms of the crease.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord

Lehman played in a league that usually had four teams, and he was often considered the best there. That league was one of two major leagues. (in 1922-1924 it was one of three leagues) Where does a goalie who is 1st/2nd in one of the two leagues rank overall? Could be 1st, could be 5th. We can only speculate. Furthermore, in these times, the 7-8 best goalies in hockey weren't the 7-8 playing in the PCHA and the NHA/NHL. There were other good goalies playing senior hockey, for example. When you see people saying, and rightfully so, "a top-10 back then is like a top-20 now", the same thing has to apply equally to all players, and that includes goaltenders. You dominate against a smaller, weaker talent pool and your all-time greatness has to be considered accordingly.

Good point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord

So, is an all-star voting record of 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, in a three-team league, generally considered to be an offensive league with less impressive goaltending, that was one of two/three big leagues at the time, where even if those leagues were consolidated, the talent pool size would be very small and would not contain all the best players, more impressive than an all-star voting record of 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7 sixty years later? Not necessarily! Or, to simplify further, is being the 4th-best goalie of the 1910-1925 generation more impressive than being the 4th/5th-best goalie of the 1970-1985 generation sixty years later? I think It takes very little era discounting to conclude that it isn't.

I sure wish you took the smallness of the league into consideration when you were discussing top-10 scoring by Eddie Oatman. I did an indepth analysis of each and every PCHA season of a few drafts back, showing him as having three great PCHA seasons and a bunch of 8th, 9th 10th scoring seasons, which made him the THIRD top scorer on his team, not at all impressive given the ice time/lack of multiple lines. Your discounting of a 3- and 4-team league accomplishment during an era with at least two top leagues and some quality talent elsewhere (how can one ignore the WHA and International hockey then between 1970-1985 in determining Esposito's seeding relative to the best of his era - you just compare him to NHLers in your claims - more discounting? Hell, in terms of big game play, Vladimir Dzurilla can be expected to step in and win a game by himself!).

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord

I mean, clearly there is a ton of league/era discounting going on already, otherwise, with an all-star record like that, he would clearly by the #1 goalie of all-time. Right?

Well he certainly should be drafted a lot higher in the ATD, as several GMs concurred by their reactions to the pick this draft. Tony Esposito may be arguably better but not clearly so. That's the rub.

The point IS his regular season record!!! At least when comparing him to Tony Esposito, whose regular season record you vault. He won time and again against several HHOFers and ATD scorers. He was the man out west, in terms of the crease.

ok, fair enough.

Quote:

I sure wish you took the smallness of the league into consideration when you were discussing top-10 scoring by Eddie Oatman. I did an indepth analysis of each and every PCHA season of a few drafts back, showing him as having three great PCHA seasons and a bunch of 8th, 9th 10th scoring seasons, which made him the THIRD top scorer on his team, not at all impressive given the ice time/lack of multiple lines.

- Oatman actually had a total of ten seasons with a points ranking better than 8th, including 4 in the top-4 (this does include two seasons in the east). I'm not sure how often he was ever 3rd on his own team in scoring, but I don't imagine it was very many, and at least a couple times it could be explained by sparse assist credit.

- Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that just counting rankings for old players and old leagues can really get you into trouble. That's why I like using percentages, that separates a "good" 6th from a "bad" 6th pretty quickly. 6th with 20 points when the leader has 30, that's pretty decent. 6th with 11 points when the leader has 30... not so much. Percentage-wise, Oatman was about as potent offensively as a guy like Tod Sloan. Not great, not a guy I'd want on a 1st line, but passable on a 2nd as a grit guy.

- I recall having a similar conversation with The Sabre when he pointed out a few times that Jack Marks "ranked highly" in his league in scoring but those were fool's gold finishes.

Quote:

Your discounting of a 3- and 4-team league accomplishment during an era with at least two top leagues and some quality talent elsewhere (how can one ignore the WHA and International hockey then between 1970-1985 in determining Esposito's seeding relative to the best of his era - you just compare him to NHLers in your claims

I'm not. If I was, I'd have called Espo the 3rd-best of his era, after Dryden and Parent. I called him "4th/5th" for a reason - because Tretiak was certainly better and Holecek is a maybe. I don't personally believe anyone in the WHA was a threat to him though.

Quote:

Well he certainly should be drafted a lot higher in the ATD, as several GMs concurred by their reactions to the pick this draft. Tony Esposito may be arguably better but not clearly so. That's the rub.

Well, I'd rather have Tony O between the pipes than Cujo. There's an advantage there, but not a big one come playoff time.

One difference between the teams is blueline depth.

Wade Redden - Joe Watson just seems less capable. Redden against the best is a shaky proposition at times and certainly his decision making is questionable. Watson is a low skill, high work ethic shot blocker who brings exactly what a team needs at the number 7 slot so starting him isn't much of a stretch as he could play the 2nd pk unit.

Alexei Gusarov - Kjell Samuelsson is a great combination of steady, smart, conservative positioning and puck movement by a disciplined veteran and a big body who can protect the crease exceptionally, though only in a clutch and grab era, as the new NHL's no touching the non-puck carrier would limit his effectiveness. It's an effective duo nonetheless.

Where do you get that Gusarov was steady and smart? Everything I've read about him indicates that he was a very wily and unpredictable player - unpredictable even to his own team!

For one, look at what overpass compiled in the bio link on the first post. Coaches and teammates have praised his careful, smart play. I recall he was kind of boring to watch because he would pass up ice instead of carry the puck out, stickhandle and position himself defensively rather than go for the big hit. If you have anything on him being at all erratic please spill it. He and Foote combined to ice the NHL's most PK ice time one season: in 1998, Gusarov and Foote as a tandem led the NHL in shorthanded time with almost 4 minutes-per-game average each (as per pnep stats)http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p...v#post10794757

Here's one more piece:

Quote:

The two seemingly could not have been more different. Foote was rough and tumble, a stalwart defender. Gusarov was an offensive dman in Russia, but in the NHL he almost instantly became a skilled shutdown rearguard. Using his strong skating skills, long reach and good instincts he became a regular penalty killer and shutdown man.

The Triple Gold club member had demonstrated offensive flair early in his career, and wise, defensive play later on. He played on the top Soviet national team from 1984-1991 incl. Canada Cups ('84, '87, '91), the rearguard is 9th all-time in games played on Soviet national team with 186 games (18 goals), a multiple world championship winner (1986, '88, '90), Olympic Gold medalist (1988) and Stanley Cup champion (1996).

He is a clear notch or two better than a Wade Redden in an all-time context.

Well, I'd rather have Tony O between the pipes than Cujo. There's an advantage there, but not a big one come playoff time.

One difference between the teams is blueline depth.

Wade Redden - Joe Watson just seems less capable. Redden against the best is a shaky proposition at times and certainly his decision making is questionable. Watson is a low skill, high work ethic shot blocker who brings exactly what a team needs at the number 7 slot so starting him isn't much of a stretch as he could play the 2nd pk unit.

Alexei Gusarov - Kjell Samuelsson is a great combination of steady, smart, conservative positioning and puck movement by a disciplined veteran and a big body who can protect the crease exceptionally, though only in a clutch and grab era, as the new NHL's no touching the non-puck carrier would limit his effectiveness. It's an effective duo nonetheless.

I disagree. A lack of reverence for the importance of being your team's best defenseman is being shown here.

Redden led his team in ice time 6 times, and they were well over .500 every time that he did. Overpass can confirm that for some of that time he was going up against the opposition's best, too. This team had playoff struggles and couldn't get over the hump. But with Redden playing big, big minutes, they were a very good/great team. that is the mark of a good defenseman.

Watson was the Flyers' #1 ES D-man in 1973, 1974, and 1975, the latter two being of course Cup years. I think Shero had winning hockey games in mind, and that he turned to Watson the most often says something, wouldn't you? Of course, if you don't like numbers I can also point out that he was voted the team's best defenseman in 1975 when they repeated as champions. Best defenseman on a cup winner? That's something neither Samuelsson nor Gusarov ever came close to doing.

Samuelsson and Gusarov are good specialists at what they do. that's about it.

Samuelsson was a career #2/3/4 defenseman (9 seasons in total spent in those slots). He was a #1 defenseman once... in 1990. And Philly missed the playoffs that year. This is what happens when your #1 defenseman is Kjell Samuelsson.

When he's in a supporting role, though, you're fine. He was a #4 in Philly when they went to the 1987 finals. That's decent. He was also #3 on the 1992 Pens. that's very good. But those are the biggest feathers in his cap. He was also a #2 on the 1988 and 1989 Flyers, both playoff teams.

Gusarov? He was a career #2-4 defenseman as well. Twice he was a #2 - In 1992 and 1994. These are, in fact, the only two times his team ever missed the playoffs. This is what happens when your #2 is Alexei Gusarov. If he's in a supporting role, though, you're fine. He was a #3 when Colorado won the 1996 Stanley Cup. He was a #3 as well, in their excellent 1993, 1997 and 2000 seasons. He was a #4 in their promising but disappointing 1995 and 1998 seasons.

Do you see the difference between the two sets of players? One proved they could be the best defensemen on good teams. The others not only didn't prove that they could, they actually proved that they couldn't.

(I, personally, also quite like the balance that we have. Wade Redden was the best defenseman on a great regular season team that kept choking, and Joe Watson was the #1 ES defenseman on a great clutch team, to offset the Ottawa chokery that taints Redden's legacy)

For one, look at what overpass compiled in the bio link on the first post. Coaches and teammates have praised his careful, smart play. I recall he was kind of boring to watch because he would pass up ice instead of carry the puck out, stickhandle and position himself defensively rather than go for the big hit. If you have anything on him being at all erratic please spill it. He and Foote combined to ice the NHL's most PK ice time one season.

Really, when you look at this objectively, Gusarov should be seen as a lesser version of Watson. Watson was also boring and safe and useless offensively. Watson was a bit more physical, and definitely better in the dressing room. Watson also enjoyed more team success and was a bigger part of that success.

For one, look at what overpass compiled in the bio link on the first post. Coaches and teammates have praised his careful, smart play. I recall he was kind of boring to watch because he would pass up ice instead of carry the puck out, stickhandle and position himself defensively rather than go for the big hit. If you have anything on him being at all erratic please spill it. He and Foote combined to ice the NHL's most PK ice time one season: in 1998, Gusarov and Foote as a tandem led the NHL in shorthanded time with almost 4 minutes-per-game average each (as per pnep stats)http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p...v#post10794757

The Triple Gold club member had demonstrated offensive flair early in his career, and wise, defensive play later on. He played on the top Soviet national team from 1984-1991 incl. Canada Cups ('84, '87, '91), is 9th all-time in games played on Soviet national team with 186 games (18 goals), a multiple world championship winner (1986, '88, '90), Olympic Gold medalist (1988) and Stanley Cup champion (1996).

He is a clear notch or two better than a Wade Redden in an all-time context.

I might actually be thinking of Alexei Gusev. All the Russian names sound the same to me.

Really, when you look at this objectively, Gusarov should be seen as a lesser version of Watson. Watson was also boring and safe and useless offensively. Watson was a bit more physical, and definitely better in the dressing room. Watson also enjoyed more team success and was a bigger part of that success.

Except Watson himself admits he had little skill, thriving through hard work, commitment and shotblocking. Gusarov was a skilled Soviet top-6 mobile offensively contributing rearguard in the 1980s before changing his style for the emerging Dead Puck Era NHL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Wonder

I might actually be thinking of Alexei Gusev. All the Russian names sound the same...

Indeed. Gusev was a top-4 Soviet in the mid-70s who tended to wander. There is film available online of games he played well and games he hasn't. I recall one game he and Petrov stunk up the ice with multiple bad plays.

Except Watson himself admits he had little skill, thriving through hard work, commitment and shotblocking. Gusarov was a skilled Soviet top-6 mobile offensively contributing rearguard in the 1980s before changing his style for the emerging Dead Puck Era NHL.

fair enough, it can be possible that Gusarov has greater offensive potential in the ATD (though from a 3rd pairing we're likely talking about one guy getting 8 points and the other 12 in a full season)

And you're right about Watson's actual skill level. But what he did with it was very good. It is the results that matter. I think Tverdovsky was much more skilled than Watson, but I know who I'd take 10 times out of 10.

Doesn't matter. The cup could have been powered by excellent goaltending and a powerful offense. You need only look at this year's playoffs - Vancouver and Tampa have gotten as far as they have without an elite #1 defenseman.. I would say that neither of them even have a top-10 defenseman.